Under an agreement UMDNJ agreed to the nurses can remain in their current positions and not be pressured to assist in any part of an abortion procedure. The nurses are only required to help if a life-threatening emergency materializes with the mother involved in the abortion and no other non-objecting staff are available to assist and only until such a time as other can be called up on to relive them.

Fe Esperanza Racpan Vinoya, one of the plaintiffs in the case, told AP she was delighted by the decision but nurse Racpan Vinoya said she was still concerned the hospital would retaliate against her by transferring her or cutting hours.

“I’m still scared about the part of them having four nurses brought in and we might become the surpluses,” Racpan Vinoya said.

A spokesperson for the ACLU predictably expressed outrage that the court would allow the nurses to “discriminate” against patients who want to abort and suggested that the 12 pro-life nurses wanted to deny care to patients in need of it.

But as New Jersey Republican Rep. Chris Smith put it, “UMDNJ argues that sometimes so-called safe, elective abortions put women in life-threatening situations. When an abortion threatens to take the life of both the baby and the mom, the pro-life nurses have always been willing to step in, if needed, to preserve the life of the mother until the emergency code team arrives.”

Precisely. To suggest otherwise is to be just as disingenuous as Nancy Pelosi when she suggested that Republicans “want” women to “die on the floor.”

This is less a question of abortion rights or wrongs as it is a question of religious liberty and conscience rights. It’s encouraging to see a federal court recognize that and take a stand for religious freedom.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

It appears the attys for the nurses filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction and they and the hospital reached an agreement. However, the case is far from over. Again, the hospital says it did not pressure anyone and the nurses say they did.

So in other words it is fine for the ACLU to discriminate against the nurses and their freedom to choose if they want to assist in an elective abortion. It is rhetorical. I know the answer. Nurses dedicate their lives to saving life, not ending it. This just makes me sick and angry. Good for the court but it should never have been an issue in the first place.

The nurses are only required to help if a life-threatening emergency materializes with the mother involved in the abortion and no other non-objecting staff are available to assist and only until such a time as other can be called up on to relive them.

What other tasks are nurses in New Jersey allowed to refuse to do if they claim “conscience clause” exemptions? I don’t see why it should stop at abortions. In fact, nurses shouldn’t even have job responsibilities, but merely job suggestions that they can do if they feel that it won’t violate their moral or religious beliefs.

Why do nurses get to refuse to take care of women before or after they had an abortion but if a murderer is in the hospital because he was shot while killing a policeman that same nurse could not refuse to care for him? Should nurses or doctors who object to war be allowed to refuse treatment to soldiers? Do we want nurses and doctors to be able to refuse to care for people who are ill because they did something that the nurse found to be morally objectionable? As far as I am concerned a healthcare providers moral objection should end where a patient’s body begins.

Perhaps because, in the case of the man who murdered a policeman, the nurses are uniquely concerned with saving a life — not in participating in the crime. In the case of a soldier, the nurse has the right to not join the military, thus rendering moot any obligation to care for soldiers. In the case of the abortion, the nurse is essential to the commission of the crime — a procedure said nurse may find morally repugnant.

That is the difference the above poster misses.

That said, the nurses have already indicated that, if the mother’s life were placed into critical danger as a result of the abortion, they would assist in stabilizing her. They just won’t do routine pre-op or post-op tasks.

I find it fascinating that the ACLU has now gotten to the point of Cafe Constitutionalism that they now express a Derived Right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is of greater importance than a Right Specifically Enumerated in the First Amendment of the constitution.

But then they’ve had little use for the 2nd 9th and 10th amendments as well.

Right you are jaydee. Even the pro-choice should recognize that religious freedom as guaranteed by the constitution is at stake here. Women may (or may not) have a right to chose to have an abortion, but they have no right to make me do it for them by costing me my job if I decline. This should have been an easy decision for the court.

In the case of the abortion, the nurse is essential to the commission of the crime — a procedure said nurse may find morally repugnant.

A nurse may also find it morally repugnant to engage in the tasks that the person you’re quoting described. If this law is strictly concerned with preventing nurses from having to do something they feel is wrong, then there’s absolutely no valid reason for it to stop at abortion.

What other tasks are nurses in New Jersey allowed to refuse to do if they claim “conscience clause” exemptions?…

theodore on December 23, 2011 at 5:24 PM

teddy, you’re going to have to do better than that stupid vapid oh-so-concerned troll of a question. This is about abortion and nothing else. Raising a silly strawman question is the tactic of an 8 year old.

But do soldiers who decide they are in an immoral war get to walk off the battlefield because it offends their religious beliefs? Remember that in the good old days there was something called the “just war” theory, which was an important moral justification for war participation. I’m not arguing with the outcome here, but just wondering where one draws the line. I agree with nottakingsides that this may set a bad precedent.

A spokesperson for the ACLU predictably expressed outrage that the court would allow the nurses to “discriminate” against patients who want to abort and suggested that the 12 pro-life nurses wanted to deny care to patients in need of it.

But its okay for the hospital to DISCRIMINATE against the nurses, right?

This is about abortion and nothing else. Raising a silly strawman question is the tactic of an 8 year old.

tds on December 23, 2011 at 5:51 PM

You certainly are passionate in your ignorance.

Tina put it best:

This is less a question of abortion rights or wrongs as it is a question of religious liberty and conscience rights. It’s encouraging to see a federal court recognize that and take a stand for religious freedom.

tds, maybe you should follow what is going on in Europe with the NHS and such. Especially Muslims in the medical field that love to take advantage of religious liberty rights and such (even opposing hygiene rules). It is a total clusterfark.

And yes, even with Christians or whatever religion or reason or bias, it is an inevitable, unavoidable slippery slope that we should avoid at all costs.

Outlaw abortion period. If we can’t do that, we are screwed beyond help anyway.

But don’t allow the clusterfark of religious/conscious rights to lower the quality of care for everyone, and increase the costs, bureaucracies, legal issues, etc…

But don’t allow the clusterfark of religious/conscious rights to lower the quality of care for everyone, and increase the costs, bureaucracies, legal issues, etc…

Their argument was that most abortions were elective. One of the reasons the court found for them is they were not refusing to participate in life saving measures. I think if they had refused the life saving abortions; the court would have made a different decision.

That being said, abortion is a huge money maker, especially since most abortion providers want to be paid in cash. I am sure the hospital can afford to find a nurse that will want to work solely in this area. I think in this highly sensitive area; the hospital would want personnel who actually wanted to be there.

Despite some lame attempts here to paint this decision as troublesome, there really is no other typical nurse duty that compares. The only things that come close are assisted suicide, pulling the plug on terminal cases and assisting in executions. And I believe at least two of those things (assisted suicide & assisting in executions) are completely voluntary.

But don’t allow the clusterfark of religious/conscious rights to lower the quality of care for everyone, and increase the costs, bureaucracies, legal issues, etc…

nottakingsides on December 23, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I’m not worried that the courts are going to start allowing too many religious/conscious in healthcare simply because of this ruling. However, I’m not sure we needed the courts to decide this. I think the free market would have handled this just fine.

If a nurse has a religious objection to participating in an abortion, it is because they believe that the act is intrinsically evil. This is not so with treating a wounded murderer or soldier. The murderer may repent and not murder again and the soldier is doing what soldiers are supposed to do, fight in battle. There is no evil in saving a life.

A nurse may also find it morally repugnant to engage in the tasks that the person you’re quoting described. If this law is strictly concerned with preventing nurses from having to do something they feel is wrong, then there’s absolutely no valid reason for it to stop at abortion.

theodore on December 23, 2011 at 5:48 PM

The New Jersey law allows doctors, nurses, and pharmacists a right to refuse to provide health care services or advice, if saud provision interferes with their religious, moral and/or ethical convictions and beliefs. In addition, after refusing, the medical professional is not obligated to refer the customer to another professional who will do the requested service.

The right is very broad. Hence, a pharmacist is not obligated to provide contraceptives of any type, nor is he or she obligated to prescribe medications produced by methods which are, in the pharmacist’s mind, counter to their morality or ethos.

This isn’t a free market. If you read the article, the hospital in question receives Federal dollars — $60M of them, according to the article, and as the article states, under both state and federal law the nurses are permitted a freedom of conscience exemption from doing work which conflicts with their moral principles.

When there is a personal “right” established to an elective abortion, and said “right” is established in law, then a legitimate push-back is to promulgate laws protecting people who don’t want to perform abortions. That’s the quid pro quo the liberals had to accede to in balancing the scales with respect to perceived individual rights.

But don’t allow the clusterfark of religious/conscious rights to lower the quality of care for everyone, and increase the costs, bureaucracies, legal issues, etc…

nottakingsides on December 23, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I think the 1st Amendment almost guarantees that religious considerations must color any law we pass. The Supreme Court has manufactured law which requires abortion to be freely available to any woman desiring one, but, in that making, has not defined a corresponding requirement that other private parties should provide one.

This is, of course, exactly like other rights which are indeed called out in the 1st Amendment — a right to freedom of speech — but no corresponding requirement that others listen, nor that Government should provide a megaphone — a right to freedom of the press — but no corresponding requirement that others read, nor that Government should provide a press.

No, it is up to the individual desiring to exercise their freedom of speech to procure an audience and a venue for speaking; it is up to the individual desiring to exercise their freedom of the press to procure a press and a readership. The only onus on Government is to not stand in the way of reasonable exercises of these rights.

Ditto for any putative abortion right — it must, by the very nature of a right, likewise be exercised between consenting adults. When one person must abrogate their rights as defined in the 1st Amendment for another person’s putative right which is nowhere mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, we have a situation which effectively turns said document completely upside down in terms of its meaning and its intent.

This isn’t a free market. If you read the article, the hospital in question receives Federal dollars — $60M of them, according to the article, and as the article states, under both state and federal law the nurses are permitted a freedom of conscience exemption from doing work which conflicts with their moral principles.

unclesmrgol on December 23, 2011 at 9:50 PM

So it seems as if this decision was already made by legislatures. I’d like to read the hospital’s response to the lawsuit to see why they thought they could get around this law. Was the hospital merely claiming that the nurses had to train to do abortions in case a life threatening one was needed to be performed?

find it fascinating that the ACLU has now gotten to the point of Cafe Constitutionalism that they now express a Derived Right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is of greater importance than a Right Specifically Enumerated in the First Amendment of the constitution.

But then they’ve had little use for the 2nd 9th and 10th amendments as well.

jaydee_007 on December 23, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Nice analysis.

(Of course, as observed by other posters, this never should’ve got to the courts in the first place, but it’s nice that they actually did the right thing. Of course, even a blind squirell finds a nut every now and then…)

Gee, it’s nice that a judge can read the words of the first amendment to the US Constitution which clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Our Government has been progressively prohibiting the free exercise of religion for years. This has to stop.

I am blessed to have a wife and a daughter that are nurses. Neither would assist in an abortion unless the mother was dying. These are exceedingly rare situations with modern pre-natal care.

Many of us work for or have worked for employers that demand unethical and immoral actions. Most of us just quietly leave and find another job. Sometimes we are fired but at the end of the day your reputation and morals are worth way more than any job or money that arises from these actions.

it’s unfortunate that our politicians and judges have lost this message. It’s why the country is as divided as it is and the rush toward power and immoral oblivion seems to trump all else.

But its okay for the hospital to DISCRIMINATE against the nurses, right?

Must be more of that liberal “nuance” that I’m missing.

GarandFan on December 23, 2011 at 6:02 PM

There is no discrimination here. Nurses are not being refused employment because they morally oppose abortion.

theodore on December 23, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Here’s where you’re wrong, theo…the nurses are being told to either participate in the abortions or risk losing their jobs. That, my friend, is discrimination based on their moral/religious objection to abortion.

Your Religion should be between you and who ever you pray too. I dont want to know and I dont care to know. You have the right to practice the Religion of your choice and I have the right to decline. Now when your religion infringes on my LEGAL rights then thats when I have a problem. If you morally disagree with an activity then dont choose a line of work where that action is required. Its really quite simple. Here in WA state we have pharmacist who dont want to hand out the Plan B bill. Where is the lines drawn?

What If I just wanted to start a religion like Joseph Smith and I was a policeman and in my religion it was morally wrong to assist a woman except for when no other non protesting male policeman was around. Now when I became a policeman I was aware that I took a pledge to assist people, but my own religion puts an * on that.